There are so many different kinds of problems that the water proposal faces right now, it makes sense to pause and take some time to lay each of them out in turn. While it is tempting to put all of this on the past councils or all of this on city staff, it seems there is a measure of shared blame here combined with inevitable fall-out from policies by the previous city manager.
It is there where I begin because this is a somewhat new point. But part of the problem here is that when Bill Emlen chose to cut staff, he did so through attrition and not rehiring. The result is that Bob Clarke, who was the city engineer, is not just the acting Public Works Director, but he also has to do Sue Gedestad’s previous job of Operations Administrator.
Let us go down the list of issues that have come up.
First, we have a tripling of our water rates that I can guarantee 95% of the people in this community do not know about. As we laid out last week, it was a year ago that the rates would be doubling. Then last December, Joe Krovoza and Stephen Souza from the city council claimed the number would be about 2.4 times the current rate.
Just three months later the proposed water rate has been tripled.
The Davis Enterprise has run two stories on water rates, and neither of them lay out the fact that the rates will triple. Back ion February 28, the Enterprise reported that “City staff is recommending increases of 28 percent for water, 3.5 percent for sewer and about 3 percent for sanitation. The new rates would be effective Aug. 1.”
The article continues, “For the average single-family household, that amounts to increases from about $35.50 a month to $45.32 for water, from $42.33 to $43.82 for sewer and from $28.87 to $29.74 for sanitation.”
Does not sound like a big deal. Two weeks later on March 17, the paper reported that “the council directed staff to draft a five-year plan of gradual rate hikes, with educational materials to explain why they are needed.”
Once again the article covered the one-year hike of 28% but nowhere did they show the full five-year buildup in water rates or explain why the city council was pushing for the five-year plan.
Adding to the confusion, we have the whole Prop 218 requirements. Once again, as we reported earlier this week, the Enterprise had a confusing description of how the Prop 218 process works.
But the bigger problem is that the city’s own disclosure, while following the legal terms and requirements of Prop 218, does not clearly inform rate payers of the true power that they possess and their true ability to protest the rate hikes in a meaningful and mandatory way.
One person who might be able to raise the public’s awareness of these issues would be columnist Bob Dunning. He continues to focus on the important, but now secondary, issue of plastic bags – something that has not even made it out of the commission’s subcommittee, let alone anywhere near passage.
However, the water rates will be a done deal within two months if the rate payers and property owners do not act. And their costs will dwarf the cost of bringing reusable cloth bags at every shopping trip.
We are talking an average rate of $1300 per year. We are talking about the average person paying possibly as much $500 on their bimonthly bill for water, sewer, and the entire water system. Think about where that money is going to come from.
I think a lot of people would have been willing to pay that – assuming they could afford it – if there was an assurance that the quality of their own water will improve. But for a lot of reasons it may not. One is that, in the summer months, the city may only provide riverwater to some residents while keeping others on well water.
The other, which we did not get into, is that our infrastructure may be so bad, that the pipes have been corroded to the point where even if better water comes through them, there will still be a lot of problems.
There are issues that city staff might be trying to hide the ball on some of these problems, as well.
The bottom line is that people expecting to get better water may not, but they will be paying a whole lot more on their water bills and unless the staff comes up with a good solution, it may be too late.
Could some of this have been avoided, had we been building up the water rates for the last ten years in anticipation of this process? Councilmember Sue Greenwald argued in a comment that the amount of savings would not have made a dent.
While I think there is something to that point, the other point is that we would have had a much more gradual increase in water rates which would have allowed the public to adjust over time, rather than getting hit with sudden and sustained 28% rate increases, we could have built up the rates in $10 increments, banking a small portion of money, but softening the blow to the pocketbooks for rate payers.
One thing that is clear is that Sue Greenwald believes that she should be on the board of the Clean Water Agency rather than Stephen Souza. As I said last week, that seems highly unlikely, under even the best of circumstances.
Frankly, looking at the issues facing the city here, the bigger issues may be on our staff side. We need Councilmember Greenwald to make noise to insure that the ratepayers know their rights, know what is coming, and find ways on the staff side to mitigate the impact of these rate hikes on those on fixed incomes or those who are economically disadvantaged.
All of these issues could be alleviated with more forceful advocacy on the dais and behind the scenes.
I still believe the rate payers of Davis are in for a sticker shock, and it is too bad no one has really stepped forward to ensure that they know what is coming down the pike.
—David M. Greenwald reporting
[quote]We need Councilmember Greenwald to make noise to insure that the ratepayers know their rights, know what is coming, and find ways on the staff side to mitigate the impact of these rate hikes on those on fixed incomes or those who are economically disadvantaged. [/quote]
Will you then support Sue? This blog has been quite critical of Sue in the past, indeed harsh. The easy thing to do as a politician is go along to get along. That has never been Sue’s style and we are better off for it.
The statement was meant to push Sue Greenwald in an area where I think she can make the most difference at this time given the dynamics on council on this issue.
David ,
“””I still believe the rate payers of Davis are in for a sticker shock, and it is too bad no one has really stepped forward to ensure that they know what is coming down the pike.””””
Put your ( 501 C 3 ) status to work , and step forward to ensure that 95 % will know , print one of your fancy fliers , and mail it to all of Davis .
It’s so simple !
dmg: “While I think there is something to that point, the other point is that we would have had a much more gradual increase in water rates which would have allowed the public to adjust over time, rather than getting hit with sudden and sustained 28% rate increases, we could have built up the rates in $10 increments, banking a small portion of money, but softening the blow to the pocketbooks for rate payers.”
The citizens were paying sewer rate increases during this time, which gave them sticker shock…
Avatar makes a good point dmg…
I suspect that if the council had done what is suggested here, gradually raise the rates to avoid sticker shock, this blog would have criticized the city for raising rates unnecessarily. I also suspect that if the city had told the citizens, “We are raising your rates. We don’t need to right now, but we are saving up for the future” most residents would have complained. It is hard to justify raising fee, rents, etc in anticipation of future need.
If the Vanguard is successful in convincing a majority of homeowners to reject the increase, I hope there is a plan B. A few days ago, Sue Greenwald stated that the alternative to river water was drilling deeper into the groundwater, but she also said that it was uncertain that the deeper aquifer could provide the amount of water needed. Suppose we drill deeper to save money, then find we have to do the river water plan anyway? What would that cost?
If the Vanguard plans to do a public mailing to block the river water program, I hopethat it also provide a specific alternative. Expensive water is better than no water.
The other question raising the rates sooner raises is whether residents would have supported the increases without the plan for how to “fix” the water problem being resolved. City would not have had their appropriation from the Sacramento River approved by Department of Water Resources, and the WDCWA purchase of water from Conaway would not have been either known, let alone done. Additionally, since this “solution” does not solve the problem today, but many years from now (2016) with little to know benefits to anyone today, is it fair to charge current residents so far in advance, particularly given the state of the economy and the fact that today’s residents won’t all be the same people as the residents in 2016? Equity would seem to suggest that the rates jump up when you need to do the actual financing for the facilities. The only reason to start the increases now is to soften the impact, but this is at the cost of equity and fairness in my opinion. I think it is appropriate to do this, but as with so many things, there is a trade-off. What we seem to be discussing now is how early the increase should be started, which is just a matter of degrees.
Avatar,
[i]Put your ( 501 C 3 ) status to work , and step forward to ensure that 95 % will know , print one of your fancy fliers , and mail it to all of Davis .
[/i]
I,m not sure it’s David’s responsibility to consume precious Vanguard funds to inform Davis citizens of the upcoming 300% increase in thier water bills with a fancy flier. If citizens have a right to ban a new fee, by majority rejection, it is the responsibility of City government to make that fact abundantly clear to ratepayers.
By the way, it was David’s “fancy flier” on fire department pension issues that originally introduced me to the Vanguard. For that I am very grateful.
It would have to be an educational piece. It would cost $5000 give or take, that the Vanguard does not have lying around right now (we have ongoing expenses to operate this site). If that is something the readers want, maybe sending the Vanguard $100 checks (click on donate at the top of this page) could persuade me it is a good use of precious Vanguard funds.
DMG wrote: ” We need Councilmember Greenwald to make noise to insure that the ratepayers know their rights, know what is coming, and find ways on the staff side to mitigate the impact of these rate hikes on those on fixed incomes or those who are economically disadvantaged. ” And the best place for Sue Greenwald to be to do that is on the WDCWA Board.
Actually that’s a pretty debatable point, but also moot since it will not happen.
I think the bigger picture is happening in the city and local handling of these issues whereas the WDCWA is mainly concerned with the construction of the water project.
If I were Sue or advising Sue, I would do an op-ed in the local paper and let people know what is about to happen and what they can do about it.
Has anyone else heard anything about the county putting a non-voting person on the WDCWA Board?
The county has a non-voting rep from the Board of Supervisors – Saylor and UCD does as well, not sure who their rep is.
[quote]A few days ago, Sue Greenwald stated that the alternative to river water was drilling deeper into the groundwater, but she also said that it was uncertain that the deeper aquifer could provide the amount of water needed. Suppose we drill deeper to save money, then find we have to do the river water plan anyway? What would that cost?–Observer[/quote]Just a point of information here: Digging the deepwater wells is chump change compared to the surface water project costs. We’re talking about $2 million per well, compared to about $200 million surface water project. And we already have most of the wells in place.
[quote]The county has a non-voting rep from the Board of Supervisors – Saylor and UCD does as well, not sure who their rep is.–David Greenwald[/quote]You bring up very important problem, here David. The county does not merely “have” a non-voting representative on the board. Stephen Souza and Joe Krovoza recently voted to make the county a participating member WITHOUT BRINGING THIS ISSUE TO THE COUNCIL FIRST.
Hence, Don Saylor now has a seat at the table for decisions involving the most expensive City of Davis capital improvement project, even though the county is not contributing a dime to this project. Don Saylor has a seat at the table, while three members of the Davis City Council do not.
What makes this particularly egregious is that Stephen Souza and Joe Krovoza had personally promised me that the council would be consulting before ANY significant vote.
This means, of course, that Don Saylor and Stephen Souza, both of whom repeatedly blocked my attempts to have a clear cost accounting of the water/wastewater project costs and my attempts to bring in Drs. Tchobanoglous and Schroeder to review the $200 million wastewater treatment plant design, will be the ones involved with similar decisions regarding the $200 million surface water project.
Again, after over a year of being gaveled down, I finally brought enough pressure on Saylor and Souza to (grudgingly) obtain this outside review of the $200 million wastewater treatment plant, which ended up saving the city about $100 million. (Our former city manager told me that the contract to sign the $200 million wastewater treatment plant was on his desk ready to sign when I obtained a “stay” pending the outside review).
Yet the two councilmembers who tried to obstruct the process involved in saving $100 million wastewater treatment plant now are making the decisions on the $200 million surface water project. This does not bode well for cost containment.
Regarding the appointment of the county (Saylor) as a “participating agency”: Even JPA agreement (which I did not vote for because it was rammed through at midnight without full council discussion) does not specificy that the county shall be a participating agency. It only identifies the University as a “participating agency”, and vaguely says that the JPA board my designate other “participating agencies”.
The University, which is the only designated “participating agency” in the JPA agreement, had the decency to decline a seat at the table since they weren’t paying for the project.
Again, giving the county (Don Saylor) a seat at the table was a discretionary action taken by Stephen Souza and Joe Krovoza without consulting the council.
Following is the wording of the (rammed through) JPA agreement that discusses the structure of the JPA:[quote]UC Davis shall participate as a Participating Agency with the Authority……[b]The Authority Board may by resolution approve additional Participating Agencies.[/b][/quote]
[quote]One thing that is clear is that Sue Greenwald believes that she should be on the board of the Clean Water Agency rather than Stephen Souza. As I said last week, that seems highly unlikely, under even the best of circumstances.[/quote]Council appointments are made by the Mayor but can be overridden by a vote of three council members. When I was mayor, I was overridden on every single important appointment I made that involved appointing myself to even to positions traditionally held by the mayor.
The entire council is responsible for every appointment. We should just wait until the vote before making statements about the outcome.
My motto is: “In politics, always hope for the best but expect the worst.”
[quote]Frankly, looking at the issues facing the city here, the bigger issues may be on our staff side. We need Councilmember Greenwald to make noise to insure that the ratepayers know their rights, know what is coming, and find ways on the staff side to mitigate the impact of these rate hikes on those on fixed incomes or those who are economically disadvantaged. All of these issues could be alleviated with more forceful advocacy on the dais and behind the scenes.—David Greenwald[/quote]David, I completely disagree with your analysis. First, there is no practical way to “mitigate” the impact of the rates on fixed and low income people because state law prohibits us from setting special low-income rates, and we have no money in the general fund for such a program (and the state program is woefully inadequate). I think you should stop dangling false hopes.
No, David, big issue is cost containment, and that can only be done by the two Davis city council members who sit on the JPA board.
The wastewater treatment plant was a city project, so I could have an equal say and manage to achieve some cost containment. I will have no such ability with the JPA if I am not on the board.
but whether you could or could not, you will not be appointed on there, so it’s a moot point.
Besides, you don’t think you’ll get cost containment if the majority of voters protest 218?
“First, there is no practical way to “mitigate” the impact of the rates on fixed and low income people because state law prohibits us from setting special low-income rates, and we have no money in the general fund for such a program (and the state program is woefully inadequate). I think you should stop dangling false hopes. “
The conversations I have had both inside and outside of the city demonstrate it can be done. One way could be a tiered rate structure based on conservation. There are apparently other ways other cities have done it. I’m less optimistic than say Paul Navazio or Joe Krovoza about the prospects, but I also believe if the public actually learns of Prop 218 process and the proposed rate hikes, the public pressure will force a lot more changes to price structure than you are acknowledging.
Remember how many people came out a year ago for a rinky-dink rate hike. It’s possible. But to date you have not be willing to grab the bullypulpit that is available to you namely an op-ed in the paper or pressuring the local columnist as you have in the past. I don’t quite understand why that is.
[quote]but whether you could or could not, you will not be appointed on there, so it’s a moot point.[/quote]
First, David, if you have been talking privately with other council members, you shouldn’t really reveal how they have said they will vote, and by saying that “I will not be appointed”, it appears that you have talked privately with a majority of council members and have reported their voteBesides, you don’t think you’ll get cost containment if the majority of voters protest 218?s.
Secondly, council members are not supposed to make up their minds until listening to all sides of an issue at the publicly noticed meeting.
[quote]Besides, you don’t think you’ll get cost containment if the majority of voters protest 218?[/quote]This is highly unlikely to happen, and I don’t envision how it would necessarily result in cost containment, rather than cost avoidance with a no project alternative.
No, David, as I said at the last council meeting, the best way to assure cost containment is to appoint council members to the JPA who have a record of successfully achieving cost containment.
Here are some of the various ways California utilities set water rates. I can’t configure pdf links here for some reason. Copy and paste this:
http://www.cmua.org/documents/Water Rate Survey 2008.pdf
There are going to be alot of dead lawns in Davis.
Lots of people are already replacing their front lawns with less water-intensive landscaping, or with fruit trees.
Here is a survey of California utility water rates that shows the range of options Davis could consider.
[url]http://peoplesvanguard.com/WaterRateSurvey2008.pdf[/url] (pdf, > 7 MB)
It is from the [url]http://www.cmua.org/[/url]. Davis might consider joining this association and making use of some of its resources.
[quote]Remember how many people came out a year ago for a rinky-dink rate hike. It’s possible. But to date you have not be willing to grab the bullypulpit that is available to you namely an op-ed in the paper or pressuring the local columnist as you have in the past. I don’t quite understand why that is. [/quote]Bully pulpit for what, David? You have not given a single concrete suggestion. I have been very vocal over the years for more honesty about rates, for containing costs, and for avoiding unscientific and incorrect hype and propaganda. My efforts have been well-reported in the Enterprise.
Yet again, the only concrete thing I could do is advocate for having the council appoint me to the JPA as I did during the last council meeting.
On the “conservation” approach to low-income relief myth [quote]The conversations I have had both inside and outside of the city demonstrate it can be done. One way could be a tiered rate structure based on conservation.—-David Greenwald[/quote]David, how many times do I have to explain that tiered rate structures and very high costs result in across-the-board conservation, which in turn results in across-the-board rate hikes in order to cover the fixed costs of the infrastructure.
In fact, if homeowners pull out their lawns then the water bill per apartment unit could well go up, since yard irrigation results in homeowners paying a greater share of the fixed costs. If homeowners pay less because they don’t have grass, then apartment dwellers will have to pay more.
Water conservation is a good thing for the state, but in terms of local water bills, at best it will just squeeze the banana. (Unless we chose the course of conserving to postpone the surface water project, and the train has left the station on that option.)
I don’t see the justification for having a county rep on the WDCWA Board–even a non-voting member. The county is not paying for any of this, to the best of my knowledge, and the county will not be getting any of the water. I say they should butt out.
The County should have a NON-VOTING participating member, at best. Not allowing the full Council to decide this issue was the kind of arrogance that we have long known Steve Souza is capable of. To find Joe Krovoza also demonstrating such arrogance and contempt for democratic process is unsettling, to say the least,and calls for increased scrutiny of our current mayor’s political agenda.
davisite2: The county’s member is non-voting, but the problem is that Saylor has a seat at the dais with full right to participate in debate, while three council members including myself have no right to sit at the dais or participate in debate.
This would be like saying that a Davis City Councilmember should have a right to have a seat on the Davis Join Unified School District dais and to weight in on every issue before the school district because school district development occurs within the city boundaries.
There is absolutely no valid argument for giving the county a seat on the dais of the Davis-Woodland surface water JPA, voting or not. None.
Again, we have Saylor and Souza involved in the decisions concerning the $200 million Davis surface water project, but this time neither myself or any other council member has any voice at all.
“Bully pulpit for what, David? You have not given a single concrete suggestion. “
Sue:
1. Op-ed in local paper
2. Lay out the rate hikes
3. Lay out the actual Prop 218 proces
4. Ensure that the Prop 218 notification form is not a pro-forma exercise but rather actually informs the public of their options
5. Press City Staff and Council to go beyond merely sending out a packet that will get thrown in the garbage
6. Press City Staff on developing tiered rate structure
7. Press City Staff to find out what other cities have done regarding low / fixed income residents
8. Press City Staff to ensure that water is equally received by rate payers
9. Ask council to put matter for vote of the public
“First, David, if you have been talking privately with other council members, you shouldn’t really reveal how they have said they will vote, and by saying that “I will not be appointed”, it appears that you have talked privately with a majority of council members and have reported their vote”
I have not spoken to council members privately.
“This is highly unlikely to happen, and I don’t envision how it would necessarily result in cost containment, rather than cost avoidance with a no project alternative. “
It would put the entire project in jeopardy which would force them to look at ways to reduce costs – most likely.
“No, David, as I said at the last council meeting, the best way to assure cost containment is to appoint council members to the JPA who have a record of successfully achieving cost containment. “
But it is not likely to happen, so you have to look for alternatives.
“davisite2: The county’s member is non-voting, but the problem is that Saylor has a seat at the dais with full right to participate in debate,”
The County does have an interest in this water project which will be in its jurisdiction. Having a County Supervisor, without a vote, to bring the County’s concerns to the discussions is, IMO, appropriate. Whether it should be Don Saylor or Jim Provenza is the REAL question and the full Davis Council should have been making this decision. Choosing Saylor, without consulting the rest of our Council, is an act of arrogance and obvious attempt to prevent public dais discussion that Souza has demonstrated many times in the past. Krovoza appears to have bought into this style of governance both in choosing Saylor over Provenza(who would have brought potential critical oversight and accountability to the JPA’s activities(rather than Saylor’s predictable “cheerleading”)and Mayor Krovoza”s refusal to let the full Coucil make the choice of County Supervisor on the JPA board.
Davisite: the JPA did not name the representative from the board, the BOS of did. Now given a whole host of things, Saylor was probably the logical choice for the BOS from their perspective having been on the JPA and familiar with the process, Rexroad second, Provenza third.
It’s not clear to me why the full Davis Council should have made the choice. The JPA already had a provision to allow other parties to join as non-voting members.
From a policy perspective, the last thing I want is Saylor, Souza and the like making these decisions. But from a process standpoint, I can’t really complain.
This is another reason I think we need to look at what we can do at the local level to make this a better policy and a more affordable one. There are a number of tools that have not been utilized but time is of the essence.
“the JPA did not name the representative from the board, the BOS did.”
If the voting JPA members(Souza and Krovoza)had the power to cast a vote rejecting a candidate, put forward by the BOS,to be a participatory, non-voting member of their board, then proper process called for this to be determined by a full Davis Council vote.
[quote]The County does have an interest in this water project which will be in its jurisdiction. davisites2[/quote]Well, the City has an “interest” in school district projects which are in our jurisdiction, but this does not give us a right to appoint a member to sit on their dais and have full participatory rights.
The proper role for the county would be a 2×2 with the Clean Water JPA, or a liaison who does not participate in debate.
Again, the University who, unlike the county, was named in the (crammed through at midnight) JPA agreement was listed as a participatory member, but had the decency to decline to a board membership due to the fact that they were not paying for the project.
The entire decision to give the county seat should have definitely been brought before the whole council by Souza and Krovosa.
David Greenwald: I have already done the things constructive things that you have recommended. In fact I was the one at the last meeting who initiated and forcefully fought for full disclosure, honesty in the hearing notice, and disclosure of the long-term rate increase, but I get everyone but Souza to go along with this.
Sorry David, but I do not believe that it is my role to lead a 218 ratepayer revolt, and you are not going to push me into this role.
Again, I should be on the Clean Water JPA due to my track record in containing costs. I have made my case.
David Greenwald: I have already done the things constructive things that you have recommended. In fact I was the one who, at the last meeting, initiated and honesty in the hearing notice and disclosure of the long-term rate increase, and I got everyone but Souza to go along with this.
Sorry David, but I do not believe that it is my role to lead a 218 ratepayer revolt, and you are not going to push me into this role.
Again, I should be on the Clean Water JPA due to my track record in containing costs. I have made my case.
“Sorry David, but I do not believe that it is my role to lead a 218 ratepayer revolt, and you are not going to push me into this role. “
That’s not my goal. But despite the improvement in the notice, it is still not sufficient as most people will not read a notice in the mail that is not more clearly defined and the Enterprise for whatever reason refuses to cover the issue thoroughly. All I suggested you do is write an op-ed laying out the issues. People listen to you and respect your view, it will highlight the issue as it has not before.
At this point, I think public education is key, first and foremost. Absolute transparency on what ratepayers can expect; full disclosure as to what their rights are in regard to a right to protest.
There is going to be hell to pay when these extreme rate increases hit. I think it is entirely possible some will find themselves out of their homes bc they cannot pay these draconian rates.
The only blame I would cast at this point is against those idiot legislators who enacted the ridiculously stringent Clean Water Act; the only praise to Sue Greenwald for saving the citizens $100 million dollars on the sewer project…
I would strongly advise Krovoza, Souza and Saylor (KSS) to tread carefully and push city staff to find whatever savings is at all possible for this project, if 51% of the voters don’t step forward with written protests…
Ultimately KSS will take the fallout for any failure to vigorously protect citizens as much as possible from needless rate hikes that could have been avoided…
Since the current and all future citizens of Davis will be using this new water system for many years I feel the best way to make it fair is to stretch out the funding as far out as possible. Yes it will cost more in the long run with the extra interest paid but this way the monthly bills could be lowered and everyone present and future will share in the costs.
“…or a liaison…”
I’m not convinced that there is a significant difference between a “liaison” and a non-voting participating member. Both can sit with the voting JPA members , bring up issues based upon input from the other Supervisors, and act as an information conduit between the voting JPA members and Yolo BOS.
[quote]I’m not convinced that there is a significant difference between a “liaison” and a non-voting participating member. [/quote]There is a HUGE difference. I liaison does not sit at the dais and participate in the debate. A liaison as available to act as a go-between.
As I mentioned, a 2×2 would be the standard way we would deal with this type of relationship. It would have also given Jim Provenza a chance to participate.
[quote]The only blame I would cast at this point is against those idiot legislators who enacted the ridiculously stringent Clean Water Act[/quote]As I have mentioned before, complying with the Clean Water Act does not require surface water.
Again, it appears as if the City of Tracy has successfully fought stringent salt requirements. Selenium is a problem of our intermediate wells which we are leaving anyway.
The issue is less one of regulation than one of long-term water supply and subsidence control. As Alan Pryor pointed out, how long our deep water aquifer supplies would last is unknown. When forced to give a guestimate, the groundwater expert I talked with a few years ago said that we were probably looking at a timeframe of 40 to 60 years. I would imagine that strong conservation and re-use efforts would help in that regard. Subsidence is a real and potentially costly likely side-effect of continued sole reliance on aquifers.
[quote]At this point, I think public education is key, first and foremost. Absolute transparency on what ratepayers can expect; full disclosure as to what their rights are in regard to a right to protest. [/quote]I worked hard on the transparency issue during the last meeting, and all but Souza agreed to inform the ratepayers about the ultimate estimated cost per month after the rates after the rates finish ramping up to cover the infrastructure.
I worked hard over the years to assure accurate information and transparency, and have been publicly saying that rates will triple for years. My rate predictions have appeared in the newspapers and been on cable over and over.
In fact, it is because of my well-covered campaign over the years to inform citizens about the potential tripling of rates that enough pressure was brought on Saylor, Souza and Asmundson to bring in the outside experts to reexamine the need for a $200 million wastewater treatment plant.
That said, there are many people who won’t pay attention until they get the bill, no matter how much “education” we provide.
“As I mentioned, a 2×2 would be the standard way we would deal with this type of relationship”
That doesn’t make any sense to me. In fact, it strikes me as severely inefficient. If their concern is the water and the issues pertaining to county land, you are suggesting them bring the issue up at a two by two – not one but two, Davis and Woodland, which would then get raised to the Davis city council and Woodland City Council – which would only then go to the JPA. Now why would you do that unless you were intentionally trying to create an onerous and unworkable structure when you could simply have a county representative sit in on the meetings of the JPA directly and participate.
I’m sorry Sue that you were cut out of the JPA from the start. I agree with you on the issue. But you are not going to get placed on the JPA. So if you do not like my suggestions, I suggest you come up with an alternative strategy on your own because a lot of people are counting on you to get this right.
[quote]”As I mentioned, a 2×2 would be the standard way we would deal with this type of relationship”–Sue Greenwald[/quote]Answered by: [quote]That doesn’t make any sense to me. In fact, it strikes me as severely inefficient. If their concern is the water and the issues pertaining to county land, you are suggesting them bring the issue up at a two by two – not one but two, Davis and Woodland, which would then get raised to the Davis city council and Woodland City Council – which would only then go to the JPA.–David Greenwald [/quote][/quote]Come on, David. It would be a 2×2 between the JPA and the County, not each city and the county. The JPA is a separate jurisdiction. It is EXACTLY the same situation as if a city councilmember were given a seat at the Davis School Board dais giving us equal standing to weigh in and meddle with every School Board decision, because school board decisions affect “Davis land” (actually, it is not “county land” or “Davis land”, but land “in the county” or land “in the city.”
I don’t know why you are defending this disturbing action.
I’m not defending anything. I don’t think your alternative makes sense and having a separate 2 by 2, doesn’t make much more sense.
David, my alternative was either a 2×2 or a liaison. Again, a 2×2 is the mechanism we use for all such situations where a jurisdiction is doing a project that they have authority over, but its land use effects another jurisdiction.
If you don’t think that the 2×2 with the water JPA and the county makes sense, you should disapprove of of the 2×2’s.
In fact, 2×2’s work just fine.
Correction: If you don’t think that the 2×2 with the water JPA and the county makes sense, you should disapprove of all of our 2×2’s.